Management of Archaeological Information and Knowledge in Digital Environment

  • Isto Huvila
Part of the Knowledge Management and Organizational Learning book series (IAKM, volume 7)


Digital technologies have had a major impact on archaeological information work. This chapter provides insights into how archaeological information and knowledge are managed in the digital environment, what major challenges can be identified in that particular domain and what insights for information and knowledge management research and practice can be drawn from a better understanding of archaeological information work. From the perspective of information and knowledge management research and practice, a closer look at archaeological work as a domain can, for instance, inform the development of strategies for managing temporal and epistemological diversity. Major challenges in the management of archaeological information and knowledge include how to address diverse perspectives and needs of different stakeholders and how to better manage social information processes and socially mediated information in addition to formal data and documentation.


Archaeology Information management Knowledge management Social information Time Epistemology Information work Information processes Information use 


  1. Almeida, M. V., & Soares, A. L. (2014). Knowledge sharing in project-based organizations: Overcoming the informational limbo. International Journal of Information Management, 34(6), 770–779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barceló, J. (2002). Archaeological thinking: Between space and time. Archeologia e Calcolatori, 13, 237–257.Google Scholar
  3. Barrett, J. C. (2006). Archaeology as the investigation of contexts of humanity. In D. Papaconstantinou (Ed.), Deconstructing context: A critical approach to archaeological practice (pp. 194–211). Oxford: Oxbow Books.Google Scholar
  4. Benardou, A., Champion, E., Dallas, C., & Hughes, L. M. (2018). Introduction: A critique of digital practices and research infrastructures. In A. Benardou, E. Champion, C. Dallas, & L. M. Hughes (Eds.), Cultural heritage infrastructures in digital humanities. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Blandford, A., & Attfield, S. (2010). Interacting with information. San Rafael, CA: Morgan and Claypool.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bloemers, T. (2010a). Introduction: Sharing knowledge – Stories, maps and design. In T. Bloemers, H. Kars, & A. van der Valk (Eds.), The cultural landscape & heritage paradox protection and development of the Dutch archaeological-historical landscape and its European dimension (pp. 521–528). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bloemers, T. (2010b). The pdl/bbo research programme analysed from the perspective of knowledge management. In T. Bloemers, H. Kars, & A. van der Valk (Eds.), The cultural landscape & heritage paradox protection and development of the Dutch archaeological-historical landscape and its European dimension. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Börjesson, L. (2015). Grey literature – Grey sources? Nuancing the view on professional documentation: The case of Swedish archaeology. Journal of Documentation, 71(6), 1158–1182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Börjesson, L., & Huvila, I. (2019). Contract archaeology. In L. Börjesson & I. Huvila (Eds.), Research outside the academy: Professional knowledge-making in the digital age (pp. 107–122). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Börjesson, L., Dell’Unto, N., Huvila, I., Larsson, C., Löwenborg, D., Petersson, B., & Stenborg, P. (2016). A neo-documentalist lens for exploring the premises of disciplinary knowledge making. Proceedings from the Document Academy, 3(1), Article 5. Google Scholar
  11. Braccini, A. M., & Federici, T. (2010). An IS for archaeological finds management as a platform for knowledge management: The ArcheoTRAC case. VINE, 40(2), 136–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Buchanan, S. A. (2016). A provenance research study of archaeological curation. Ph.D. thesis, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin.Google Scholar
  13. Byrne, S. (2012). Community archaeology as knowledge management: Reflections from Uneapa Island, Papua New Guinea. Public Archaeology, 11(1), 26–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Byström, K., Ruthven, I., & Heinström, J. (2017). Work and information: Which workplace models still work in modern digital workplaces? Information Research, 22(1), Paper 1651. Google Scholar
  15. Carver, M. O. H. (2009). Archaeological investigation. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Carver, M., Gaydarska, B., & Monton-Subias, S. (Eds.). (2015). Field archaeology from around the world: Ideas and approaches. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  17. Copplestone, T., & Dunne, D. (2017). Digital media, creativity, narrative structure and heritage. Internet Archaeology, 44.
  18. COST-ARKWORK. (2016–2020). COST action CA15201 archaeological practices and knowledge work in the digital environment.
  19. Dallas, C. (2015). Jean-Claude Gardin on archaeological data, representation and knowledge: Implications for digital archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 23(1), 1–26.Google Scholar
  20. Daly, P. T., & Evans, T. L. (2006). Introduction: Archaeological theory and digital pasts. In T. L. Evans & P. T. Daly (Eds.), Digital archaeology: Bridging method and theory (pp. 2–7). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. De Roo, B., Bourgeois, J., & De Maeyer, P. (2016). Information flows as bases for archaeology-specific geodata infrastructures: An exploratory study in flanders. JASIST, 67(8), 1928–1942.Google Scholar
  22. Demoule, J.-P. (2016). Preventive archaeology: Scientific research or commercial activity? In P. Novaković, M. Horňák, M. P. Guermandi, H. Stäuble, P. Depaep, & J.-P. Demoule (Eds.), Recent developments in preventive archaeology in Europe: Proceedings of the 22nd EAA Meeting in Vilnius, 2016 (pp. 9–19). Ljubljana: Ljubljana University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Dorrell, P. G. (1994). Photography in archaeology and conservation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Dunn, S. (2006). ECAI – E-Science Methods in Archaeology: Development, Support and Infrastructure in the UK. Abstract of a paper presented in the 34th Annual Meeting and Conference of Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology CAA2006, Fargo, April 18–21, 2006.Google Scholar
  25. Engel, C., & Grossner, K. (2016). Representing the archaeological process at Çatalhöyük in a living archive. In I. Hodder & A. Marciniak (Eds.), Assembling Çatalhöyük (pp. 13–24). Leeds: Maney.Google Scholar
  26. Fear, K. (2010). User understanding of metadata in digital image collections: Or, what exactly do you mean by “coverage”? The American Archivist, 73(1), 26–60. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Flexner, J. L. (2016). Dark and bright futures for museum archaeology. Museum Worlds, 4(1), 1–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gallay, A. (2018). L’archéologie demain 1986-2016: Quoi de neuf? In S. Léglise, F. Mathias, & J. Ripoche (Eds.), L’archéologie, science plurielle (p. 00000). Paris: Éditions de la Sorbonne.Google Scholar
  29. Gardin, J.-C. (1971). Archaeology and computers: New perspectives. International Social Science Journal, 23(2), 189–203.Google Scholar
  30. Gardin, J.-C. (1980). Archaeological constructs: An aspect of theoretical archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Gardin, J.-C. (1999a). Archéologie, formalisation et sciences sociales. Sociologie et sociétés, 31(1), 119–127. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gardin, J.-C. (1999b). Calcul et narrative dans les publications archéologiques. Archeologia e calcolatori, 10, 63–78.Google Scholar
  33. Gardin, J.-C. (2003). Archaeological discourse, conceptual modelling and digitalisation: An interim report of the logicist program. In M. Doerr & A. Sarris (Eds.), CAA 2002 The digital heritage of archaeology. Computer applications and quantitative methods in archaeology. Proceedings of the 30th Conference, Heraklion, Crete, April 2002 (pp. 5–11). Athens: Archive of Monuments and Publications, Hellenic Ministry of Culture.Google Scholar
  34. Geser, G. (2016). WP15 study: Towards a web of archaeological linked open data. Salzburg: ARIADNE.Google Scholar
  35. Geser, G., & Selhofer, H. (2014). D2.1 first report on users Ńeeds. tech. rep. Prato: ARIADNE.Google Scholar
  36. Gherardi, S., & Perrotta, M. (2013). Doing by inventing the way of doing: Formativeness as the linkage of meaning and matter. In How Matter Matters (pp. 227–259). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Gilissen, V., & Hollander, H. (2017). Archiving the past while keeping up with the times. Studies in Digital Heritage, 1(2), 194–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Gruber, G. (2017). Contract archaeology, social media and the unintended collaboration with the public – Experiences from Motala, Sweden. Internet Archaeology, 46.Google Scholar
  39. Gustafsson, A., & Magnusson Staaf, B. (2001). Rapport om rapporter – en diskussion kring kvalitetsbedömningar av arkeologiska rapporter. Report 2001 (p. 3). Stockholm: RAÄ.Google Scholar
  40. Henninger, M. (2018). From mud to the museum: Metadata challenges in archaeology. Journal of Information Science, 44(5), 658–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hodder, I. (2000). Towards reflexive method in archaeology: the example at Çatalhöyük. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.Google Scholar
  42. Högberg, A., & Holtorf, C. (2013). Heritage futures and the future of heritage. In S. Bergerbrant & S. Sabatini (Eds.), Counterpoint: essays in archaeology and heritage studies in honour of Professor Kristian Kristiansen, no. 2508 in BAR international series (pp. 739–746). Oxford: Archaeopress.Google Scholar
  43. Högberg, A., Holtorf, C., May, S., & Wollentz, G. (2017). No future in archaeological heritage management? World Archaeology, 49(5), 639–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Holtorf, C. (2012). Kritische Archäologie ist angewandte Archäologie. Forum Kritische Archäologie, 1, 100–103. Google Scholar
  45. Huggett, J. (2012). Promise and paradox: Accessing open data in archaeology. In C. Mills, M. Pidd, & E. Ward (Eds.), Proceedings of the Digital Humanities Congress (p. 2012). Sheffield: Humanities Research Institute.Google Scholar
  46. Huggett, J. (2016). Digital haystacks: Open data and the transformation of archaeological knowledge. In A. T. Wilson & B. Edwards (Eds.), Open source archaeology, ethics and practice (pp. 6–29). Berlin: de Gruyter Open.Google Scholar
  47. Huvila, I. (2006). The ecology of information work – A case study of bridging archaeological work and virtual reality based knowledge organisation. Åbo: Åbo Akademi University Press. Google Scholar
  48. Huvila, I. (2009). Ecological framework of information interactions and information infrastructures. Journal of Information Science, 35(6), 695–708. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Huvila, I. (2011). The politics of boundary objects: hegemonic interventions and the making of a document. JASIST, 62(12), 2528–2539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Huvila, I. (2012a). Authorship and documentary boundary objects. In 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Science (HICSS) (pp. 1636–1645). Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society.Google Scholar
  51. Huvila, I. (2012b). Being formal and flexible: Semantic Wiki as an archaeological e-Science infrastructure. In M. Zhou, I. Romanowska, Z. Wu, P. Xu, & P. Verhagen (Eds.), Revive the past: Proceeding of the 39th Conference on Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology, Beijing, 12–16 April 2011 (pp. 186–197). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Huvila, I. (2012c). Information services and digital literacy: In search of the boundaries of knowing. Oxford: Chandos.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Huvila, I. (2013). How a museum knows? Structures, work roles, and infrastructures of information work. JASIST, 64(7), 1375–1387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Huvila, I. (2014a). Archaeologists and their information sources. In I. Huvila (Ed.), Perspectives to archaeological information in the digital society (pp. 25–54). Uppsala: Department of ALM, Uppsala University.Google Scholar
  55. Huvila, I. (2014b). Be informed of your information. Current Swedish Archaeology, 22, 48–51.Google Scholar
  56. Huvila, I. (2014c). Towards information leadership. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 66(6), 663–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Huvila, I. (2016a). Awkwardness of becoming a boundary object: Mangle and materialities of reports, documentation data and the archaeological work. The Information Society, 32(4), 280–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Huvila, I. (2016b). ‘If we just knew who should do it’, or the social organization of the archiving of archaeology in Sweden. Information Research, 21(2), Paper 713. Google Scholar
  59. Huvila, I. (2017a). Archaeology of no names? The social productivity of anonymity in the archaeological information process. ephemera, 17(2), 351–376.Google Scholar
  60. Huvila, I. (2017b). Land developers and archaeological information. Open Information Science, 1(1), 71–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Huvila, I. (Ed.). (2018a). Archaeology and archaeological information in the digital society. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  62. Huvila, I. (2018b). Ecology of archaeological information work. In I. Huvila (Ed.), Archaeology and archaeological information in the digital society (pp. 121–141). London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Huvila, I. (2018c). Putting to (information) work: A Stengersian perspective on how information technologies and people influence information practices. The Information Society, 34(4), 229–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Huvila, I. (2019). How knowing changes. In L. Börjesson & I. Huvila (Eds.), Research outside the academy: Professional knowledge-making in the digital age (pp. 155–170). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Huvila, I., & Huggett, J. (2018). Archaeological practices, knowledge work and digitalisation. Journal of Computer Applications in Archaeology, 1(1), 88–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Ingold, T. (2013). Making: Anthropology, archaeology, art and architecture. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Jarrahi, M. H., & Thomson, L. (2017). The interplay between information practices and information context: The case of mobile knowledge workers. JASIST, 68(5), 1073–1089.Google Scholar
  68. Jeffrey, S., Richards, J., Ciravegna, F., Waller, S., Chapman, S., & Zhang, Z. (2009). The archaeotools project: Faceted classification and natural language processing in an archaeological context. Philosophical Transactions. Series A, Mathematical, Physical, and Engineering Sciences, 367(1897), 2507. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Kansa, S. W., & Deblauwe, F. (2011). User-generated content in zooarchaeology: Exploring the “middle space” of scholarly communication. In E. C. Kansa, S. W. Kansa, & E. Watrall (Eds.), Archaeology 2.0: New approaches to communication and collaboration (pp. 185–206). Los Angeles, CA: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, UC Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  70. Kansa, E., & Kansa, S. (2011). Toward a do-it-yourself cyberinfrastructure: Open data, incentives, and reducing costs and complexities of data sharing. In E. C. Kansa, S. W. Kansa, & E. Watrall (Eds.), Archaeology 2.0: New approaches to communication and collaboration (pp. 57–91). Los Angeles, CA: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, UC Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  71. Kansa, E. C., Kansa, S. W., & Watrall, E. (2011). Archaeology 2.0: New approaches to communication and collaboration. Los Angeles, CA: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, UC Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  72. Karmacharya, A., Cruz, C., Boochs, F., & Marzani, F. (2008). Managing knowledge for spatial data – A case study with industrial archaeological findings. In Paper presented at digital heritage in the new knowledge environment: Shared spaces & open paths to cultural content, Athens, Greece.
  73. Khazraee, E., & Gasson, S. (2015). Epistemic objects and embeddedness: Knowledge construction and narratives in research networks of practice. The Information Society, 31(2), 139–159. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Khazraee, E., & Khoo, M. (2011). Practice-based ontologies: A new approach to address the challenges of ontology and knowledge representation in history and archaeology. In E. Garcia-Barriocanal, Z. Cebeci, M. C. Okur, & A. Öztürk (Eds.), Proceedings of 5th International Conference, MTSR 2011, Izmir, Turkey, October 12–14, 2011. (pp. 375–386). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. Google Scholar
  75. Kilbride, W. (2016). Saving the bits: Digital humanities forever? In S. Schreibman, R. G. Siemens, & J. Unsworth (Eds.), A new companion to digital humanities (pp. 408–419). West Sussex: Wiley.Google Scholar
  76. Kilfeather, E., McAuley, J., Corns, A., & McHugh, O. (2003). An ontological application for archaeological narratives. In Proceedings of 14th International Workshop on Database and Expert Systems Applications, 2003. (pp. 110–114). New York: IEEE.Google Scholar
  77. Kintigh, K. (2006). The promise and challenge of archaeological data integration. American Antiquity, 71(3), 567–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Kirchner, S., & Jablonka, P. (2001). Virtual archaeology: VR based knowledge management and marketing in archaeology first results – Next steps. In VAST ‘01: Proceedings of the 2001 Conference on Virtual Reality, Archeology, and Cultural Heritage (pp. 235–240). New York, NY: ACM Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. KML. (1988). Kulturminneslagen [Swedish Cultural Heritage Act] 1988 (p. 950).Google Scholar
  80. Kochan, J. (2018). Science as social existence: Heidegger and the sociology of scientific knowledge. Cambridge: Open Book Publishers. Google Scholar
  81. Kristiansen, K. (2014). What is in a paradigm? Reply to comments. Current Swedish Archaeology, 22, 65–71.Google Scholar
  82. Laužikas, R., Dallas, C., Thomas, S., Kelpšienė, I., Huvila, I., Luengo, P., Nobre, H., Toumpouri, M., & Vaitkevičius, V. (2018). Archaeological knowledge production and global communities: Boundaries and structure of the field. Open Archaeology, 4(1), 350–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Léglise, S., Mathias, F., & Ripoche, J. (Eds.). (2018). L’archéologie, science plurielle. Paris: Éditions de la Sorbonne. Google Scholar
  84. Lim, S., & Liew, C. L. (2011). Metadata quality and interoperability of GLAM digital images. ASLIB Proceedings, 63(5), 484–498. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Lock, G. (2003). Using computers in archaeology: Towards virtual pasts. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Lucas, G. (2010). Time and the archaeological archive. Rethinking History, 14(3), 343–359. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Lucas, G. (2012). Understanding the archaeological record. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  88. Marila, M. (2018). Arkeologialla on spekulatiivinen vastuu [archaeology has a speculative responsibility]. Muinaistutkija, 2, 52–55.Google Scholar
  89. Marquardt, W. H., Montet-White, A., & Scholtz, S. C. (1982). Resolving the crisis in archaeological collections curation. American Antiquity, 47(2), 409–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Mathias, F., Léglise, S., & Ripoche, J. (2018). Conclusion. In L’archéologie: Science plurielle. Paris: Éditions de la Sorbonne.Google Scholar
  91. Meghini, C., Scopigno, R., Richards, J., Wright, H., Geser, G., Cuy, S., Fihn, J., Fanini, B., Hollander, H., Niccolucci, F., Felicetti, A., Ronzino, P., Nurra, F., Papatheodorou, C., Gavrilis, D., Theodoridou, M., Doerr, M., Tudhope, D., Binding, C., & Vlachidis, A. (2017). Ariadne: A research infrastructure for archaeology. Journal on Computing and Cultural Heritage, 10(3), 18:1–18:27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Mills, H., & Baker, M. (2009). The VERA information environments. In 37th Annual Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology (CAA) Conference, Williamsburg, Virginia. Google Scholar
  93. Missikoff, O. (2004). Ontologies as a reference framework for the management of knowledge in the archaeological domain. In Enter the past. Proceedings of the 30th CAA conference held in Vienna, Austria, April 2003, no. 1227 in British Archaeological Reports – International Series (pp. 35–38). Oxford: Archaeopress.Google Scholar
  94. Morgan, C. L. (2012). Emancipatory digital archaeology. Ph.D. thesis. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  95. Moscati, P. (2013). Jean-Claude Gardin (Parigi 1925-2013). Dalla meccanografica all’informatica archeologica. Archeologia e Calcolatori, 24, 7–24.Google Scholar
  96. Moscati, P. (2016). Jean-claude gardin and the evolution of archaeological computing. Les Nouvelles de l’archéologie, 144, 10–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Newell, S., Robertson, M., Scarbrough, H., & Swan, J. (2009). Managing knowledge work and innovation (2nd ed.). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Newman, M. (2011). On the record: The philosophy of recording. Internet Archaeology, 29.
  99. Ní Chíobháin Enqvist, D. (2018). Digital maritime sights: Digital visual documentation and communicationin Scandinavian contract maritime archaeology. Lic. thesis. Linnaeus University, Kalmar.Google Scholar
  100. Niven, K., & Richards, J. D. (2017). The storage and long-term preservation of 3d data. In D. Errickson & T. Thompson (Eds.), Human remains: Another dimension: The application of imaging to the study of human remains (pp. 175–184). London: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Olsen, B. (2012). Archaeology the discipline of things. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Olsson, M. (2015). Making sense of the past: The information practices of field archaeologists. In Presentation at the i3 Conference, Aberdeen, Scotland.Google Scholar
  103. Olsson, M. (2016). Making sense of the past: The embodied information practices of field archaeologists. Journal of Information Science, 42(3), 410–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Östling, J., Sandmo, E., Heidenblatt, D. L., Hammar, A. N., & Nordberg, K. H. (Eds.). (2018). Circulation of knowledge explorations in the history of knowledge. Lund: Nordic Academic Press.Google Scholar
  105. Patrik, L. (1985). Is there an archaeological record? Advances in archaeological method and theory, 8, 27–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Pavel, C. (2010). Describing and interpreting the past: European and American approaches to the written record of the excavation. Bucuresti: Editura Universitatii din Bucuresti.Google Scholar
  107. Perry, S. (2018). Why are heritage interpreters voiceless at the trowel’s edge? a plea for rewriting the archaeological workflow. Advances in Archaeological Practice, 6(03), 212–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. RAÄ. (2015a). Digital arkeologisk process – DAP. Samordnad information om fornminnen. Stockholm.Google Scholar
  109. RAÄ. (2015b). Uppdragsarkeologi: Rapportering, förmedling och arkeologiskt dokumentationsmaterial. Stockholm.Google Scholar
  110. Richards, J. D. (2002). Digital preservation and access. European Journal of Archaeology, 5(3), 343–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Richards, J. (2016). Long-term data preservation and re-use: The work of the archaeology data service. In K. May (Ed.), Digital archaeological heritage – Proceedings of the International Conference Brighton, UK, 17–19 March, 2016 (pp. 85–87). Namur: Europae Archaeologia Consilium (EAC).Google Scholar
  112. Riksantikvarieämbetet. (2016). Fyndprocessen – från arkeologiska undersökare till mottagande museum med förslag för en mer digital process. Tech. rep., Visby.Google Scholar
  113. Russell, I. A., & Cochrane, A. (Eds.). (2014). Art and archaeology: Collaborations, conversations, criticism. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  114. Schlitz, M. (2007). Archaeological photography. In M. R. Peres (Ed.), The focal encyclopedia of photography (pp. 506–508). New York: Focal Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Schofield, J. (2010). Archaeology and contemporary society: Introduction. World Archaeology, 42(3), 325–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Shanks, M., & McGuire, R. H. (1996). The craft of archaeology. American Antiquity, 61(1), 75–88. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Stanco, F., Battiato, S., & Gallo, G. (2017). Digital imaging for cultural heritage preservation: Analysis, restoration, and reconstruction of ancient artworks. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Star, S. L. (2010). Ceci n’est pas un objet-frontiére! Réflexions sur l’origine d’un concept. Revue d’anthropologie des connaissances, 4(1), 18–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Stengers, I. (2005). Introductory notes on an ecology of practices. Cultural Studies Review, 11(1), 183–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Suchman, L. (1987). Plans and situated actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  121. Trigger, B. G. (1989). A history of archaeological thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  122. Trigger, B. G. (2006). A history of archaeological thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. Uotila, K., & Huvila, I. (2006). The education of little archaeologist? Reflections on the digital education and training of archaeological professionals. In Proceedings of the International Congress Kulturelles Erbe und Neue Technologien Workshop-10 Archäologie und Computer. Wien: Magistrat der Stadt Wien, MA 7 – Referat Kulturelles Erbe - Stadtarchäologie.Google Scholar
  124. Valtolina, S., Barricelli, B. R., & Dittrich, Y. (2012). Participatory knowledge-management design: A semiotic approach. Journal of Visual Languages & Computing, 23(2), 103–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. Valtolina, S., Barricelli, B. R., Gianni, G. B., & Bortolotto, S. (2013). Archmatrix: Knowledge management and visual analytics for archaeologists. In S. Yamamoto (Ed.), Human interface and the management of information. Information and interaction for learning, culture, collaboration and business (pp. 258–266). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Van de Noort, R. (2013). Climate change archaeology: Building resilience from research in the world’s coastal wetlands. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. van der Linde, S. J., van den Dries, M. H., & Wait, G. (2018). Putting the soul into archaeology - integrating interpretation into practice. Advances in Archaeological Practice, 6(3), 181–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. van der Valk, A. (2010). Introduction: Sharing knowledge – stories, maps and design. In T. Bloemers, H. Kars, & A. van der Valk (Eds.), The cultural landscape & heritage paradox protection and development of the Dutch archaeological-historical landscape and its European dimension (pp. 365–385). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
  129. Van Valkenburgh, P., Silva, L. O. G., Repetti-Ludlow, C., Gardner, J., Crook, J., & Ballsun-Stanton, B. (2018). Mobilization as mediation: Implementing a tablet-based recording system for ceramic classification. Advances in Archaeological Practice, 6(4), 342–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. Vatanen, I. (2005). Affordances and constraints in knowledge organization. In S. Hawamdeh (Ed.), Knowledge management: Nurturing culture, innovation and technology. Proceedings of the 2005 International Conference on Knowledge Management (pp. 315–321). Singapore: World Scientific.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. Vlachidis, A., Binding, C., Tudhope, D., & May, K. (2010). Excavating grey literature: A case study on the rich indexing of archaeological documents via natural language-processing techniques and knowledge-based resources. Aslib Proceedings: New Information Perspectives, 62(4–5), 466–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. Voss, B. L. (2012). Curation as research. A case study in orphaned and underreported archaeological collections. Archaeological Dialogues, 19(2), 145–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  133. Wallrodt, J. (2016). Why paperless: Technology and changes in archaeological practice, 1996–2016. In D. B. Counts, E. W. Averett, & J. M. Gordon (Eds.), Mobilizing the past for a digital future : The potential of digital archaeology (pp. 33–50). Grand Forks, ND: Digital Press at the University of North Dakota. Google Scholar
  134. Warwick, C., Fisher, C., Terras, M., Baker, M., Clarke, A., Fulford, M., Grove, M., O’Riordan, E., & Rains, M. (2009). iTrench: A study of user reactions to the use of information technology in field archaeology. Lit Linguist Computing, 24(2), 211–223. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. Wattrall, E. (2011). iAKS: A web 2.0 archaeological knowledge management system. In E. C. Kansa, S. W. Kansa, & E. Watrall (Eds.), Archaeology 2.0: New approaches to communication and collaboration (pp. 171–183). Los Angeles, CA: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, UC Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  136. Wendrich, W. (2012). Archaeology and apprenticeship: Body knowledge, identity, and communities of practice. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.Google Scholar
  137. Zahlouth, I. M. L. V., & de Paiva, R. O. (2012). Vestigios arqueologicos como fontes de informacao: Segredos do passado transcritos em suportes primitivos [Archaeological remains as sources of information: Secrets of the past transcribed in primitive media]. Biblionline, 8(2), 37–48.Google Scholar
  138. Zaslavsky, I., Burton, M. M., & Levy, T. E. (2017). A new approach to online visual analysis and sharing of archaeological surveys and image collections. In M. L. Vincent, V. M. López-Menchero Bendicho, M. Ioannides, & T. E. Levy (Eds.), Heritage and archaeology in the digital age: Acquisition, curation, and dissemination of spatial cultural heritage data (pp. 133–150). Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  139. Zubrow, E. B. W. (2006). Digital archaeology: A historical context. In T. L. Evans & P. T. Daly (Eds.), Digital archaeology: Bridging method and theory (pp. 8–26). London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Isto Huvila
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of ALMUppsala UniversityUppsalaSweden

Personalised recommendations